MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388011516 · doi:10.1142/s2737436x2350005x

Isolating the Roles of Religion, Ethnicity, and Political Ideology in Mass Atrocities, 1800–2020

2023· article· en· W4388011516 on OpenAlexaff
Mukesh Eswaran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economics Management and Religion · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyPoliticsWorld War IISociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Religion, ethnicity, and political ideology all lend themselves to the perpetration of mass atrocities by creating a sense of identity that sets up an Us/Them dichotomy. Atrocities are modelled here as arising from the motive of acquiring territory but augmented by other-regarding preferences that capture the role of identity. My empirical results using data for the period 1800–2020 confirm that all these identity-driven motivators are associated with mass atrocities, with religion being more powerful than ethnicity. Monotheistic religions (with the strong exception of Judaism) are seen to be associated with more mass atrocity deaths than (polytheistic) Hinduism, lending partial credibility to Hume’s (1757/2010) view on the intolerance of monotheism. While democracies are associated with fewer mass atrocities than autocracies, Christian liberal democracies are not. My statistical analysis rejects the popular presumption that Islam is more violent than Christianity. In fact, in the post-World War II (WWII) era, among the major religions Christianity has been associated with the most mass atrocity deaths. The results also show that mass deaths were higher in atrocities that took place in settler colonies, especially in the post-WWII period of decolonisation. Using mass atrocities as the metric of violence, the correlations found in the empirical work of this paper offer many new and surprising findings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economics Management and ReligionSame topicPolitical Conflict and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207